Wetpixel D800 camera review

As mentioned in the introduction, the D800’s sensor scored 95 out of a possible 100 on the DxO Labs tests. This made it the best sensor tested to date by the organization. DPreview have awarded the camera its “Gold Award” and commented that:

“With its 36MP sensor, the D800 is among the highest resolution cameras we’ve put before our test chart. And as you’d expect its performance here puts it at the head of the class among its DSLR peers.”

From a purely empirical standpoint, the statistics simply state that the camera has more resolution and hence gathers more image information than any other “35mm” format camera currently in production. Yet, when you read further into the tests carried out above, both organizations are at pains to state that the resolution is only achievable by working for it. This involves good technique, as well as excellent lenses and good conditions.

It is perhaps this latter requirement that is potentially the biggest issue for underwater photographers. Shooting underwater is as far from studio conditions as is imaginable. We shoot through water, which degrades our image quality, and often in less than ideal light conditions. We shoot through ports, and sometimes even shoot virtual images just outside of dome ports. Some image quality has to be sacrificed in order to achieve this.

So the question is; although we now have a tool that has the potential to give super high image quality, is it realistic to expect such quality underwater?

The D800’s sensor measures 7360 x 4912 pixels on a sensor that is 35.9 x 24mm in size. By comparison, the Canon 5D Mark III’s sensor is 5760 x 3840 pixels and measures 36 x 24mm. The D800 can shoot an image which can be printed at 200dpi at as big as A1 poster-sized prints (59.4 x 84.1 cm/23.4 x 33.1 in). Is all this really advantageous in an underwater environment?

One of the most frequent concerns expressed about the D800’s resolution is that it will “out-resolve” lenses, causing significant degradation to images. In an underwater context, there is also concern about the ports through which we take images.

In the case of the D800 however, an exploration of the pixel density shows that these concerns are (largely) unfounded. In FX mode, the sensor area is 861.6 Sq. mm. (35.9 x 24). This gives a pixel pitch is 4.88 micron. This is very similar to a DX camera at around 16 megapixel e.g. D7000’s pixel pitch is 4.78 microns. So despite the increase in resolution this is offset by an overall increase in sensor size.

Whilst this type of theoretical comparison is useful, it is in and under the water that is really where things count. Below is a crop of an image shot at 1/320 at f16/ISO 100 using the D800 with a Sigma 15mm and Zen 230mm port. All images have passed through the Lightroom 4 pipeline and been cropped in Photoshop, but have had no noise reduction, exposure or color treatment added.

Cropped:

And this is the original image:

As the final image shows, this was not shot in ideal conditions. Given this, the level of and the resolution of detail in the smallest crop is really quite astounding.

In terms of macro, the following was shot on a very surgy day at St. Abbs, Scotland, using a Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR. 1/320 at f22, ISO 100.

Again, cropped:

What both these images show is that the cameras resolution is being successfully employed to extract fine detail, even in challenging underwater conditions. Clear, still water will undoubtedly produce stunning results with this camera, and I think it is fair to say that more difficult conditions will challenge it, but this is also true of every other camera out there. The additional resolution gives more creative “head-space” to the photographer, and gives creative potential to scenes and subjects that have probably hitherto not been feasible.

(b) ISO.

The adoption of larger sensors by Nikon with the D3/700 was largely driven by a demand for better low light performance in digital cameras. The D2 series, very capable DX cameras in many respects, simply could not deliver acceptable image quality at anything over ISO 400. The theory is that FX sized sensors have a greater surface area per pixel, and can hence deal with a greater range of light levels without producing excessive noise.

It is of interest to note that technology also plays a role in this. The Nikon sensors of 2012 (and possibly those of Canon too) are simply better than previous versions. The D7000 was capable of very credible high ISO performance, even though it is a DX format. With the D800, I think we are seeing this evolution develop further. I did a series of pool tests, using this “glass fish” as a subject.

I’m not sure the results show anything particular, except that in a pool environment, noise is apparent. The levels are easily manageable in post-production, even at ISO 3200.

For a more “real world” application of this, please see the following images.

The Capernwray aircraft at 1/60, f7.1 with a green water magic filter and ISO 800. The aircraft lies at 18m (55’) and the weather was very dark, with rain and 100% cloud cover. The combination of the depth, available light and the use of a filter is a really serious test of just what this camera can do. Interestingly, the light conditions were so bad that finding a white balance target to manually white balance the camera proved very difficult.

A crop of the darker cockpit area.

There is noise, but it does not seem excessive.

A quick clean up in the Detail tab in Lightroom produced this:

Another image, taken on the same day. This time, camera settings were 1/40, f9 with magic filter and ISO 2500.

As you would expect, there is more noise in the shadows.

However, once again a quick clean up in Lightroom seems to improve the situation significantly

The D800 is very capable of shooting in low light conditions. As Alex has noted in his D4 review, the ability to shoot at high ISO with minimal image degradation isn’t only for deep, dark and dangerous subjects! Normal wide-angle scenes, when shot at higher ISOs, give the photographer additional creative tools at his or her disposal. Fast moving subjects require a fast shutter speed to freeze their motion, and this can be achieved by pushing the ISO up.

(c) Tonal Range.

The tonal range of a digital image is the number of tones it has to describe the dynamic range. The dynamic range of a sensor is defined by the largest possible signal divided by the smallest possible signal it can generate. DxO has tested the D800’s sensor at 14.4 EV (exposure value), the highest ever tested by them.

As underwater photographers, we frequently attempt to capture a wider tonal range than typical for photographers in general. If you can picture a reef wall, if we look below us, the water column appears black and looking up, the surface appears bright or white. This is complicated by the fact that we often tend to use very wide-angle or fisheye lenses that are, in some cases, capable of capturing this whole range. Until now, options for dealing with this have been limited. People tended to frame images so that the camera could cope with the dynamic range in it, or place an object into or over the sun to silhouette it and prevent the sensor from over exposing.

Sunballs represent an extreme example, and are a subject that has eluded digital image makers so far. Typical results of using a digital sensor to catch a sunball were banding or haloing that showed where the sensor had failed to cope with the dynamic range required to deal with the huge variety of tones in the image. Early in the Wetpixel testing of the D800, it became apparent that, possibly for the first time, this was a tool that could capture a very wide dynamic range.

This is straight out of the camera via the Lightroom 4 pipeline.

As is this:

In the days of film, films were often referred to as having more (or less) exposure latitude. Essentially this meant that the film was capable of being under or over exposed and still providing acceptable results. The D800 is, I feel, a digital camera that provides the same thing. The D800, with the ammount of image information contained in each capture seem to be capable of retaining details that can be restored in post processing. In the image on the left below, the shadows have been underexposed. A quick trip into Lightroom 4 using the Highlights and White sliders restores the detail in the image as can be seen in the right hand version.

And here is a somewhat more extreme example:

This ability to capture a broader range of tones will allow photographers to add vibrance and depth to images that arguably may not have been possible before.

I would suggest to take a look first at:
www.lenstip.com
www.photozone.de
www.the-digital-picture.com
www.kenrockwell.com
etc....Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-24 08:52:12

Thanks Andrej; it would be nice to see some UW tests by the pro's comparing these various DX lenses on the D800 body. In the range of macro to wide-angle. So see if the more expensive lense is worth the money!Posted by albert kok on 2012-09-23 14:07:05

Sorry: Canon 8-15Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-23 11:00:45

The Tokina at 15-17 mm gives mediocre results (25 - 35 lp/mm) so it is ok to use it on FX. If You shave it You get something similiar to a round fisheye, but You don't need to do it if You stay above 15 mm.
Compared to other fisheyes it is way inferior. Here is my recommendation:
1. Nikonos RS 13 mm converted to use it on Nikon DSLR. FX
2. Canon 10-15 mm zoom. FX and DX
2. Nikon 10.5 mm. DX
3. Sigma 15 mm. FX
3. Sigma 10 mm. DX
4. Nikon 16mm. FXPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-23 10:45:56

As an amateur I dont want to dig to deeply in these technical matters, but I hope my following idea is correct. Using the Tokina 10-17 in the DX mode on the D800 would give you approximately the same result and resolution (pixel density) as using this lense in a cropped sensor camera like the D7000. Switching to the D800 FX mode gives you an image with strong vignetting in the corner, if the Tokina is set at 10 mm. You can take the black corners away by cropping afterwards. Which gives you almost the same result as the same shot taken in the DX mode. But in the FX mode you are pobably more flexible in selecting the part of the image you want to cut out. A subsequent question is if the optical quality of the Tokina 10-17 is inferior to that of more expensive full frame fish-eye lenses?
Cheers AlPosted by albert kok on 2012-09-23 03:27:57

I see, then using the D800 with a shaven Tokina 10-17 in the FX mode would give you a full frame fisheye zoom at 36 mp? Did anyone actually compare in open water the D800 with the Tokina at (say) 10-12 mm with a more expensive full frame fisheye lense? I am especially referring to wide angle and wide angle macro shots.Posted by albert kok on 2012-09-22 12:39:28

Asa far as I recall this was only the case with FXPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-22 11:21:38

Back to the Tokina 10-17..did anyone mention that using this lense in the DX mode requires prior 'shaving' of the lense hood? See:
http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.htmlPosted by albert kok on 2012-09-21 16:16:21

Yes, actually if You take the rear filter element out I'm certain that You can get sharp focus from the dome surface on. At 5.6 it's already as corner sharp as a 9" dome. From f11 to f22 You get the same depth of field characteristics as with a 4" dome, from the dome to infinity. The weight is 1 kg and it's very small and handy. I've posted a review yesterday to Adam Hanlon. I hope he's going to publish it soon.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-30 13:39:10

Regarding the 13mm. Wouldn't the 13mm let you take those close focus wide angle shots? Its a very long time since I last used one but I remember that it focused super-close and was relatively easy to light due to the dome modest size. I think that could give it an edge... just thinking.Posted by EspenRekdal on 2012-08-30 10:50:33

I agree with Adam's comment that using DX mode to crop macro offers no advantage over Shooting FX images and just cropping the image later. Get as close as you can, shoot it and if you need to crop a bit later, you have the resolution to handle it. There is a big advantage, however, to the DX mode crop when shooting macro is if you shoot video! This is a big reason that I jumped ship from Canon back to Nikon with a D800. As I work in Lembeh strait, I shoot loads of Macro video. You can't crop video without losing quality. But if you "crop" by switching to the DX mode, you are still getting 1920x1080 video so you can make critters 1.5x larger with no quality loss!Posted by FishTales on 2012-08-29 21:35:06

And there is a difference between the Nikonos RS fisheye and a housed one.
I'm not sure about the other Nikonos lenses like the 50 mm or the 28 mm but I want try it out to see by myself and it's technically possible.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 15:13:57

The 20-35 is too large for all housings, even for the Nauticam because there has to be a waterproof adapter around it (housing-adapter bayonet and Nikonos RS o ring - adapter bayonet) and the Nauticam port is too small for the lens and the adapter. But since it's larger than the Subal or Seacam it can house the 50 mm macro lens.
The 13 mm Fisheye and the 28 mm go with all housing brands.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 15:08:15

I greatly look forward to the results Andrej.
I still have the 20-35mm, which I think would be the most interesting by far, although the land 20-35mm it was based on is hardly a lusted after lens these days. However - I think the zoom knob might get in the way of mounting in some housings.
I don't see the point with the 50mm as I am sure it would be inferior to the AF-S 60mm. And I don't think the fisheye would be enough of an advantage either as housed fisheyes work perfectly well. The Aumann 18mm (which I 've never tried) was a lens (now an old lens) behind a dome, so I don't see that offering any advantages.
But I do really look forward to your tests.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-08-29 09:10:31

How about using Nikonos RS lenses with a 36 MP sensor? I have modified them so they can be used with regular Nikon cameras and I've already built adapters so they are waterproof with housed cameras.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 08:55:25

Excellent review, Adam. Thank you so much for your hard work.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-08-29 04:04:25

Thanks AdamPosted by Scubysnaps on 2012-07-10 08:08:20

Are there really people out there using Tokina 10-17 and a converter?
FunnyPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-28 17:31:29

I'm impressed by the "evolutionary" feel of the D800: I've set up my new toy in a couple of hours, and even made inroads into making video recording work.
It's very comfortable in the hand.
It arrived a lot faster than expected: I wonder how fast a housing will be?
In reply to John, I wonder if shooting and shooting is part of Alex's recipe for bright, idiosyncratic, and stimulating images (apart from experience, talent and time underwater, of course)?Posted by tdpriest on 2012-06-27 20:33:18

Duxy reports recording 1500 images in a week in the Red Sea. Alex M says he recorded 1000 images in two days the UK this week.
I was 35mm film trained. Maybe it made me more discerning. I press the button far less often so a 16GB card in a D800 seems quite adequate to me.
As I said elsewhere, like David Lean, I don't shoot anything I don't intend to use.Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-27 07:55:17

You love it Tim :)Posted by Alex_Tattersall on 2012-06-27 07:47:01

Thanks,Adam!
After my recent sad loss (pace Digigreen) I have been investigating an upgrade rather than just carrying on with 2010 technology. I think I can get a lot from the D800, and that it will push me to tighten up my focus and composition. Mostly I want one for toy-value, having failed to learn from my buddy in the Sudan who brought along TWO D3s...
... but seemed to enjoy taking snapshots whilst (prior to the sad loss in some 500m of water) I was struggling to bracket focus, strobes, composition etc, etc...
... I am haunted by Alsky72, and I shall NEVER escape the curse of the black housing, it seems!Posted by tdpriest on 2012-06-15 11:28:13

Andrej, I only take issue with your word 'awful' in describing the Tokina. I agree it may not be the lens best suited for bringing out the absolute best in a camera like the D800, but it is certainly capable of excellent, extremely sharp images, with any camera from 6 to 36MP, including the D800.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 22:31:04

There are also large good looking prints from 6 MP cameras. The photographer makes the picture, not the lens or the camera. Maybe the reputation of the Tokina stems from the time when 6 MP cameras were up to date and the Tokina was sufficient.
Regarding new lenses for Nikon we'll see what will come up next...Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 16:31:45

At 3 times the price, one would certainly expect the 8-15 to be significantly better I agree, but I have 24"x36" prints on my wall taken with the Tokina that show excellent detail no matter what the tests show.
For the D800, in FX mode I think both these lenses are of limited use.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 15:38:41

Regarding the Tokina:
A Tokina at 10 mm resolves some 15-20 line pairs per mm at the edge and some 25-30 lp/mm at the center. However at 14-17 mm it gets better to an almost acceptable 25-35 lp/mm. Very good lenses resolve 40 - 55 lp/mm (like the Canon 8-15 or Sigma 8-16 DX or Nikon 14-24).
A Nikon D7000 or a cropped Nikon D800 has 68 lp/mm. These tests (link below) perfectly coincide with my personal experience. I bought a Tokina - since I heard so many good things about it - and used it for only one dive. Afterwards I sold it immediately. It would be optimal to use lenses that coincide with the sensor's resolution capabilities.
http://www.lenstip.com/19.4-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_107_DX_AF_Fish-Eye_10-17_mm_f_3.5-4.5_Image_resolution.htmlPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 14:46:16

Just looked at a few images; for example a full daylight scene of a lake with trees and a rowboat etc 39.24MB. So yes 30MB is probably optimistic, but just under 40 seems to be the normPosted by loftus on 2012-06-14 12:53:43

The few I just looked at were sunrises - 38MBPosted by loftus on 2012-06-14 12:27:14

My D800 RAW files are 43-47MB - depending on detail. I guess you could get sub 40MB with a completely black scene - can't see how you get to 30MB.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-14 11:36:49

Yeah, but most use lossless compression - files seem to be about 30- 40MB or so on average.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 10:48:17

p435 of the D800 manual: NEF uncompressed 14-bit 74.4MBPosted by John Bantin on 2012-06-14 09:50:16

Hmmm; hardly think the Tokina is awful! Some pretty awesome images out there with it. It does have some chromatic aberration issues etc, but still a very useful lens. What we really need is a new version of the the Pentax full frame fisheye zoom from Tokina. My favorite focal length is the long end of the 10-17 on DX.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 08:12:34

@ John-how did you get it to 75MB? Quality in RAW settings? I'm intrigued.Posted by Adam Hanlon on 2012-06-14 07:31:55

That's a very good point with the pre-download selsction. The same thought occured to me.
I think it's also time to get rid of the awful quality of the Tokina 10-17 - I complained about it a long time ago. Either press Tokina to make something better or crop the Sigma 15 mm or use the Canon 8-15.
Maybe Nikon will provide something new. The current 16 mm fisheye is 20 years old.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 07:19:41

One thing I have noticed with this camera, I am much more selective about what I download in the first place. So when the preview loads I immediately deselect the crap (which is most of the shots) and then download the remainder for review. After downloading and closer review, a whole lot more stuff is deleted forever than before.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 06:46:05

With max. quality settings, a RAW file is 75Mb!Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-14 06:38:26

Something I noticed the other night, is that when you shoot in DX mode, the live view is displayed full size. So shoot live view, and no viewfinder crop.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 06:30:04

Enjoyed the latest section, Adam. I agree with you about shooting to crop making more sense than using DX mode. Especially with the loss of viewfinder size in DX mode. It is worth noting that synch speeds are 1/400th in 1.2x crop and 1/500th in DX mode - if using electronic flash synch, rather than optical synch. AlexPosted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-14 03:53:12

Another nice thing - your macro shot shows the Nikon synchs nicely at 1/320. I routinely consider the fastest synch speed to be the FP setting of 1/320 not 1/250Posted by loftus on 2012-06-01 07:28:36

That's a lot of money you've cost me!Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-01 07:08:19

Thanks for these detailed tests on image quality, Adam. That final image on P2 is one of the most impressive showing how much detail can be recovered from shadows. Ground breaking!
BTW - thanks for doing realistic high ISO tests. Are the crops showing noise from the plane shots at 100%? I would expect the crops to show a smaller area of the plane given the high resolution of the sensor.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-01 01:20:44

Thanks Adam; can't wait to get my D800 underwater in a few weeks. I think this is really an amazing camera. Nikon led the way with high ISO a few years ago that changed the way people thought about shooting available light; the high DR is going to expand the possibilities yet again.Posted by loftus on 2012-05-31 19:58:03

Thanks for spending the time to review this camera. Looking forward to more.Posted by blackbird on 2012-05-31 01:51:38

Child says D800, Adult says D7000. Which is it gonna be? Will the lack of FX lens mean we're "stuck" with the D7000 for underwater?Posted by pixelnut on 2012-05-30 22:59:47

I would like to say cracking job Adam. The D800 is a joy to have in your hand. It feels better to hold than the D700 and to get to all of the controls it"s simplistic your eye does not need to leave the viewer.Posted by goose on 2012-05-30 14:08:38

Gimme more!Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-05-29 20:41:04

Chomping at the bit for more! Keep it coming, Adam!Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-05-29 11:16:31